U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing #77, 97-05-19
From: The Department of State Foreign Affairs Network (DOSFAN) at <http://www.state.gov>
1102
U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
I N D E X
Monday, May 19, 1997
Briefer: Nicholas Burns
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1 Welcome to Press Briefing: Vice Mayor of Pasadena
1 Secretary Albright's Activities:
1-2 --5/19-Wilmington, Delaware Speech/Remarks on MFN -- China
1,11 --5/19--Mtg. w/Foreign Secretary of United Kingdom, Robin Cook
1-2,13-14 --Statement on Holocaust Assets
1 --5/17-Birthday Party
2 --5/20 Mtg. w/Pakistani FM Ayub Khan
2 Statement on Tajikistan
2 Statement re: Nat'l. Consultations on Food Security
2 Deputy Secretary Talbott Address to Atlantic Council
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
3 Kabila to Arrive in Kinshasa/Interim Gov't.
Ambassador Simpson's Activities:
3 --Mtg. w/Sr. Advisers to Kabila
4 --Telecons w/Mr. Kabila
4 Mr. Mobutu's Financial Assets
3-5 Security of U.S. Embassy & Americans
5-6 Alleged Massacres/Brutalities
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
7-8 Dennis Ross as Lead U.S. Negotiator
8 Ambassador Indyk Speech in Tel Aviv
9-10 Second Palestinian Land Dealer Killed
10 Next Steps in Peace Process
TURKEY/GREECE
11-12 Aegean Negotiations
COLOMBIA
15 Threats to/Security of Diplomatic Personnel
SUDAN
16 Reported Visit to U.S. of Sudanese Opposition Leader
CHINA
16 MFN Status
NATO
17 RUSSIA--The Founding Act
17-18 The Baltic Countries
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #77
MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 1:15 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
MR. BURNS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen; welcome to the State
Department. I have a friend of mine here from Pasadena, California, Bill
Crowfoot. He is the vice mayor of Pasadena, a member of the city council, a
former resident of Washington, D.C. I want to welcome you, Bill.
I have a couple of announcements before we go to questions. First is, I
think as you all know, Secretary Albright is in Wilmington, Delaware. She
is giving a speech at this moment in Wilmington to a variety of businesspeople
from Wilmington. In that speech, she is obviously going to make the case
for the President's decision to extend MFN to China.
The President will be speaking to that, I think, about an hour from now.
The Secretary, in that speech, will be making that case. I hope to have the
Secretary's speech, as prepared, available to you by the end of this
briefing. It should be available to you by the end of the briefing. It does
make a rather detailed case of why the United States and China should
maintain a very vigorous economic relationship.
Now, this morning the Secretary had a busy morning. She had a 60th birthday
party on Saturday night, had several hundred people at the Halcyon House at
Georgetown whom her daughters and brother invited. It was a great affair --
several ambassadors, Senator Jesse Helms was there. There was some dancing.
It was a great evening.
So she recovered from her birthday party and a weekend with her relatives.
She got in early this morning and she met with her new colleague, the new
Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom Robin Cook. They had an excellent
meeting. That meeting covered NATO, Bosnia and Hong Kong. They also agreed
to release the following statement that I would like to read on the issue
of Holocaust assets. This statement reads as follows - and we have this
in writing for you in the press room.
The recent UK and U.S. reports on Nazi gold have provided valuable
information about the gold and other assets stolen from governments, stolen
from individuals, and most notably from Jewish victims, of the Nazis during
the Second World War. The Tripartite Gold Commission should complete its
work as soon as possible. In this context, the recent reports strengthen
the case for looking constructively for ways to benefit Holocaust victims
or their direct descendants. Both the United States and the United Kingdom
agreed today to seek the greatest possible openness of Tripartite Gold
Commission documents pending completion of that commission's work.
They agreed that an additional appropriate step would be an international
conference in London, before the end of the 1997, to be convened by the
British Government. This would allow interested parties and governments to
establish a common understanding of the facts surrounding Nazi misappropriation
of assets during the Second World War. I'll be glad to take questions on
that once I get to the end of our announcements.
I wanted to remind you that the Secretary, who will be returning late this
evening from Wilmington - she has a full day there with Senator Biden,
another speech tonight -- she will meet tomorrow with the Pakistani Foreign
Minister Gohar Ayub Khan. That is tomorrow morning. They plan to have an
important meeting to discuss the full range of U.S.-Pakistan issues,
including the recently resumed dialogue between Pakistan and India, which
has given a lot of us hope that Pakistan and India will be able to improve
their relationship. I understand the Foreign Minister is also going
to meet our National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and over at the
Pentagon he will be meeting with Under Secretary of Defense Walt Slocum.
I am also issuing a statement today on Tajikistan. I won't read the whole
statement. It is available to you, but let me just note that the State
Department, the United States Government, welcomes progress in Tajikistan's
United Nations mediated peace negotiations, and there were agreements
signed between President Rahmonov and opposition leader Nuri at the
conclusion of the May 17th and 18th summit in Bishkek.
The agreements call for lifting the ban on all political parties, all
political movements, after they have disarmed, after they have given up
their weapons. They have allotted to the opposition 25 percent of the seats
on the Central Electoral Commission to prepare for new parliamentary
elections during the transition period. We hope very much that this
progress in Tajikistan, a country that has known tremendous violence since
its independence in 1991, we hope this progress continues.
I am also issuing a statement today on Under Secretary Tim Wirth's
participation in the national consultations on food security. This is going
to be held at 15 sites around the country on May 21 and I have a press
statement that will let you know how that is going to take place and where
you can get information on it, both from us and through our website.
I also want to let you know that our Deputy Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott is going to deliver a foreign policy address to the Atlantic
Council of the United States here in Washington tomorrow, May 20th, from
9:00 a.m. to 10:0 a.m.. That is at their Washington headquarters, 910 17th
Street. The title of the speech is, "NATO, Russia and Transatlantic
Security in the 21st Century." If you would like to cover that event, you
can see the press office or call Scott Kocher at the Atlantic Council
directly. I've got an announcement that gives you the available phone
numbers.
Now, last, I thought, George, that what I should do is just lead off with a
question on Zaire, if that's where you want to go, lead off with some
comments on Zaire because that's where you're going to go first. I just
talked to Dan Simpson, our ambassador in Kinshasa, and he had a lot of
interesting things to say, which I thought would get the ball rolling
today.
First, we understand, based on meetings this morning, that Mr. Laurent
Kabila plans to arrive in Kinshasa tomorrow; that he plans to formerly
establish an interim government by tomorrow evening. The United States
continues to hope, and we continue to communicate to Mr. Kabila, that this
new government be an inclusive, representative government that would bring
in people from various political parties, various ideologies, various
ethnic groups in a country with over 250 different groups speaking over 250
different languages. That is very, very important for the period ahead.
There have been a lot of questions over the weekend about how the United
States is reacting to events. Let me just give you a couple of thoughts.
First of all, we have already begun to work with Mr. Kabila and with his
associates. It is not going to be necessary for the United States to issue
a formal document or a formal proclamation recognizing formally this new
government. The fact is that the United States has relations with states,
not governments. We had a relationship with Zaire, a country that has
vanished. We had a relationship with the former Democratic Republic of
Congo in the 1960s -- another government that vanished long ago. We will
now have a relationship with the Democratic Republic of Congo, the
government that is going to be established by Mr. Kabila within 24
hours.
Therefore, we consider the relationship between the United States and this
country to be ongoing and we consider, on a de facto basis, that we are
working with that new government as it forms itself. Mr. Kabila is
certainly in effective control of the situation in Kinshasa and throughout
most of the rest of the country. Therefore, we will continue to work with
him as closely as circumstances permit.
We will no longer be calling this country Zaire. Zaire went away on Friday
afternoon with Mobutu. That country has vanished, and obviously, a new
country, a new government is now being established under different people.
We will refer to this country as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Ambassador Simpson met this morning with two senior advisors to Mr. Kabila,
Mr. Deo Bugera - B-u-g-e-r-a, who is the Secretary General of the Alliance,
and Mr. Paul Kabungo*, who is the Director of Security for the Alliance. It
was a positive meeting, as Ambassador Simpson described it to me on the
telephone. They agreed to establish contacts, ongoing contacts between our
embassy in Kinshasa and the new leadership. The new leaders explained their
priorities, which they said were economic reconstruction and the formation
of a new government. Ambassador Simpson raised a very important issue to
Americans, and that is the security of our embassy - our diplomats - and of
the over 300 private Americans who we believe remain in Zaire. They agreed
that they would maintain a very close dialogue on security for American
citizens.
Ambassador Simpson at their request is also facilitating their contacts
with Mr. Tshisekedi, who, as you know, was one of the major opposition
leaders during the time when President Mobutu was in power. He actually
gave these two gentlemen Mr. Tshisekedi's phone numbers and other contacts
and said that we would agree, obviously, to try to do anything we could to
put them in contact with each other. Ambassador Simpson believes that that
contact will be made today. That is a very good thing because the
United States believes it is very important that this new government
be inclusive and be broad-based, and we would hope that Mr. Kabila and his
associates would reach out to other politicians.
Over the weekend Ambassador Simpson was on the phone to Mr. Kabila five or
six times. Mr. Kabila was spending the weekend in Lubumbashi. At one point
over the weekend the Ambassador was contacted by a group of government
soldiers -- that is, Mobutu soldiers at the main military compound in
downtown Kinshasa. They asked him what they should do. Ambassador Simpson
advised them to lay down their arms to make it clear to the rebel forces
coming into the city that the government troops did not wish to fight. He
then called Mr. Kabila and advised Mr. Kabila that there was a large
number of government soldiers who wished to surrender, and the surrender
took place in relatively peaceful circumstances.
He also arranged phone calls -- Ambassador Simpson -- between General
Mahele and Mr. Kabila on Thursday and Friday. General Mahele, as you know,
was killed later on Friday night at the main military compound in
Kinshasa.
I mention these examples to describe to you the larger point, and that is
the United States wants to be in a position to help facilitate a peaceful
transition. The last thing that we wanted to see was a blood bath in
Kinshasa over the weekend. People did die over the weekend. There were some
acts of retribution, which we condemn and regret very much. There is no
place for that. But by and large, the entry of the rebel army into Kinshasa
over the weekend went more smoothly and more peacefully than many
people had imagined or feared that it might. We hope right now that
Mr. Kabila will continue to act and do and say the right things that
will send a message of peace and stability to all Zairians.
Now, two other questions that have come up repeatedly to me from the press
over the weekend. On the question of Mr. Mobutu's financial assets, we
believe right now that he is in Morocco, having gone there from Togo. This
is a question that the new Zairian leadership will have to deal with, along
with Mobutu and his family. The United States has not been asked to take
any action on this question of assets, primarily because we don't believe
that former President Mobutu has significant financial assets in the United
States. His assets appear to be in Switzerland, in France and other
countries. This appears to be a question that the new leaders of the
Democratic Republic of Congo will have to deal with with those European
countries.
Finally, we do have some advice for American citizens. Our prior advice,
prior to last Thursday and Friday, had been they should leave the country.
Our current advice today - and I think this will extend into the next day
or two - is for American citizens to keep their heads down, to stay in
their homes or in their offices, wherever they may be, not to venture out
into the streets any more than they have to do, and not to try to seek to
leave the country.
We give this advice, obviously, because it is still an unsettled situation
in Kinshasa. Kabila is bringing more troops into the city today. He will
bring in more tomorrow. There are some outbreaks of violence. There has
been some shooting. People have died on the streets, and our strong advice
to American citizens is to stay where they are for the time being. Our
embassy will be in touch with them as the situation stabilizes over the
next couple of days with further advice.
QUESTION: The decision to accept the name Democratic Republic of the
Congo, you don't always do this when new leaders change the name of their
respective countries. I can cite the example of Myanmar, which I don't
believe you have adopted, and the case of Kampuchea in 1975. Is this a
gesture to the rebel group?
MR. BURNS: In the case of Burma, which is what we call that country in
Southeast Asia, it is very clear to us that the great majority of people
who live in that country consider their country to be Burma and not the
name that the military dictators gave to it. As similar, I think, with the
other example you mentioned, Kampuchea. That name was given to it by a
nefarious group of people who we hope never come back to Cambodia; and that
is the name we call that country.
In this case, Congo was the name of the country as it achieved independence
in 1960. Mobutu changed the name to Zaire in 1971 for his own reasons. He
is gone. His era is past. We hope that there is a new era arriving in the
Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo. We will see. We do think - and we
issued a statement on this on Saturday which you probably saw - it's still
a time where the new government needs to meet certain tests. They
need to rule in a stable way. They need to be sensitive to the issue
of human rights, of civilians who live under their control now.
We hope very much that not only will they deal with economic reconstruction,
but they will try to deal with political reconstruction and that they might
reach out to a variety of politicians and lead the country towards
elections. That is what the United States hopes happens in the coming weeks
and months, and we hope to work with Mr. Kabila on that basis.
QUESTION: But haven't they flunked a key human rights test by the way
they treated the Rwandan refugees in the northeastern part of the
country?
MR. BURNS: The United States spoke our very, very strongly against the
brutal massacres of thousands of Rwandan Hutu refugees in and near
Kisangani. Mr. Kabila says that it was a mistake, that he will punish any
troops who are found to have been involved in those massacres. We are going
to have to hold him to that because we and, obviously, the United Nations,
were very disturbed to see that kind of treatment of innocent people who
had already been victimized by virtue of the fact that they were driven
from their homes.
So when we say it is a time of testing, what we mean is that the government
does start with this handicap that there already have been these massacres
and alleged brutalities. They need to be looked into. The new government
needs to give the United Nations access to Kisangani, to the refugee camps
there, to the refugees who still remain, so that the United Nations can
look into these allegations of a massacre. We hope that Mr. Kabila will
punish those who are found to be responsible for those terrible crimes.
QUESTION: Do you know what Mr. Kabila's former nationality was?
MR. BURNS: Former nationality?
QUESTION: Yeah. Where is he from?
MR. BURNS: Well, I believe he is from Katanga, from the Luba, but I don't
know. By nationality, you mean what state did he -
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. BURNS: Well, I assume that for many years he considered himself to be
someone who was resident in either the Congo in the early 1960s, or Zaire
after that. But he did spend a considerable amount of time in Tanzania and
Uganda in his years in exile. As you know, he was an exile leader in
rebellion to the Mobutu regime. So you'll have to ask him about his
passport identification and other documents, but that seems to us to be who
he has been.
QUESTION: Actually, it is more than idle curiosity. It has to do with
tribal feuds and scores to settle. Do you believe, like others, that he is
a Tutsi?
MR. BURNS: I have never heard that. In all the biographies that I have
read, he appears to be a Luba. So why don't you perhaps ask some of your
colleagues to inquire into this in Kinshasa?
I think the larger point I would make, without getting into the details of
things I don't know, is that it is a country with over 250 different groups
in it. It is a country geographically the size of western Europe. It is the
third largest country on the continent. It is an ethnically diverse, very
complex country that does require, we think, broad-based representation to
run an effective government. That is our advice to Mr. Kabila.
QUESTION: Also, aside from the tribal conflicts there, there is also the
fight going on in the area between the Anglophone and the Francophone
countries, which Ambassador Richardson noted, I believe, in his interview
on Sunday. There have been comments in the press that troops coming in,
Rwandan troops accompanying Kabila's forces have said to people here, now
we're speaking English here. And some of the other countries which were
traditionally associated with France have become a little unnerved about
what is going on there. I wonder if the United States is concerned
that this aspect of the conflict will become more aggravated, especially
because it's not a question simply of culture or what language, but also
key raw materials and the control of these raw materials.
MR. BURNS: Well, if you read some of the very fine articles that appeared
in The New York Times and The Washington Post over the weekend, the
predominant language of the rebels seems to be Swahili, not English and not
French. The rebel forces are comprised to a great extent from these so-
called Zairian Tutsis. They were the ones who began the rebellion with Mr.
Kabila many months ago. But they have picked up adherents since.
The United States does not have an agenda to promote one language or
another in Zaire or in Africa. We are not supporting English-speaking
countries against French-speaking countries, not at all. We want that part
of Africa, Central Africa, that group of ten states to be stable. We want
it to be free of the terrible ethnic violence and bloodshed that led to the
genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the brutal massacres just in the last two
months up near Kisangani.
We want to see economic reconstruction. We want to see political pluralism
take root, and finally elections for Zaire. That is our agenda. We don't
have a narrow agenda. This isn't the end of the 19th century where the
English-speaking and French-speaking Western countries are competing for
influence. This is the modern era where African states are trying to
solidify themselves. That is the appropriate framework for a discussion of
this issue.
Yes. No more on Zaire? Yes, sir.
QUESTION: There were reports over the weekend that Chairman Arafat has
complained about - we visited this question before - about Dennis Ross'
impartiality or lack thereof. Nick, the way I would phrase the question is,
it seems to me a question of perception. And if the Palestinians have lost
confidence in Dennis Ross, does that weaken his ability - without getting
into whether he's done a good job or not - does that weaken his ability to
act as an effective mediator?
MR. BURNS: Well, first of all, he's done a very good job. Secondly, these
are curious statements that were made on Friday because at about the time
when we were talking here on Friday afternoon, Dennis Ross was meeting, at
his invitation, with Chairman Arafat and had a meeting with Abu Mazen and
Saeb Erakat before that at their invitation. So the Palestinians sought
Dennis out twice on Friday for discussions. That is fact number one,
which I think argues against this theory that has been floated by
some Palestinians and in some newspapers.
Secondly, I think Dennis, as one of our most experienced negotiators,
understands a fact of life. That is when you are the mediator, when you are
trying to bring two recalcitrant parties together, you can't please
everybody all the time. There are times when one party or another -
sometimes both parties -- are going to be angry with you or frustrated with
you, and they are going to say that. We may have seen some of that on
Friday. Nevertheless, the President and the Secretary of State have
absolute and full confidence in him, as you would expect. He is going to
continue to be very, very active as our lead negotiator in this. He
and the Secretary spoke several times over the weekend about ways
by which we could try to bring the Palestinians and Israelis together.
I'll tell you something else. After a quarter of a century of American
leadership in the Middle East, when we hit bumps in the road, when we hit
obstacles, we don't give up. That is our advice to the Israelis and the
Palestinians. If you are frustrated, if you think you are not getting
someplace, the last thing you want to do is give up because then that gives
the field to the extremists, to the terrorists. We don't want that to
happen. So the United States, with Dennis Ross as the lead negotiator, will
continue our efforts to argue for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I would refer you to what Secretary Albright said on Friday when she met
with all of you upstairs, and that is that they have got to want it more
than we want it. They have got to want peace. They have got to want
progress in the negotiations more than us. We will be there with them. We
will mediate for them. But if they don't step up to the plate and
compromise with each other, there isn't going to be peace in the Middle
East. We are not going to give up. We will stay there. They have to join us
in a good-faith effort to make peace.
QUESTION: Let me follow. Are you suggesting that these criticisms have
not come from Chairman Arafat but other Palestinians?
MR. BURNS: All I know is the facts, and the facts are that amidst all
these reports - people getting all excited over who is snubbing whom and
who is frustrated with whom, Chairman Arafat requested a meeting with
Dennis Ross. In the course of that meeting, he expressed himself satisfied
with the way the United States was conducting itself in Middle East. Prior
to that, his two senior lieutenants also sought out a meeting. I think that
speaks volumes about what is happening on the ground. I would listen more
to their actions than their words.
QUESTION: Have you seen the comments reported to have been made by
Ambassador Indyk over the - I guess over the weekend - in which he is
quoted as saying that the basis for the talks has collapsed? The basis for
the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has collapsed because of unilateral
actions on the part of the Israelis and terrorism on the part of the
Palestinians? One, have you confirmed that he did make those statements?
And two, does that represent the U.S. Government position?
MR. BURNS: I know that Martin Indyk gave a speech last evening in Tel
Aviv about the peace process and the state of the peace process. I have not
seen the text, but it was described to me by two people. There is nothing
in that speech that shocked me or led me to believe that somehow the United
States had changed its position, which it has not.
We have said -- the President, the Secretary and Dennis and Martin - many
times over the last couple of months, there is a crisis in the Middle East
peace negotiations -- we have used the word -- and that trust, which is an
elementary condition for successful negotiations, has broken down between
the Israelis and Palestinians. There is nothing new in that.
But the United States, under the President's and the Secretary of State's
leadership, remains absolutely committed to negotiations between the
Israelis and Palestinians. If they want to negotiate tomorrow, we will be
there. Next week, we will be there, too. So we haven't lost our resolve
here by any stretch of the imagination. Haim.
QUESTION: Nick, one of the possible conclusions is that although the
Administration is not giving up, it may put the whole issue on the back
burner because evidently the parties themselves do not convey a wish or
will to move forward more than the United States, as an honest broker,
wishes them to do. Is that a fair conclusion? Is there a reassessment in
Washington about what to do next? And is it a possible option to put the
whole issue on the back burner until they themselves will decide to move
forward?
MR. BURNS: I don't think so. I don't think that is a - I would not
describe the situation like that, but I understand why you're asking the
question. The fact is that the United States has vital national interests
in the Middle East. Those interests speak to our economic interests, our
strategic interests and also to our political and humanitarian interests.
We have a relationship with the State of Israel, which is fundamentally
important to the American people. We have an interest in trying to help
Israel and Arab countries trying to achieve a comprehensive peace. None of
that has gone away. So we will remain very closely involved with the
Palestinians and the Israelis and the other Arab countries as they seek to
make peace. We have a lot of other things that we have to do as well;
that's true. The President and the Secretary are going off to Europe next
week. The Secretary will be going to Asia a couple of times this summer.
They've both just been - the President and the Secretary - to Latin
America.
The world can't stop while the Palestinians and Israelis fail to make
peace. The world will go on and we'll go on active in that world. But it
does not mean that somehow we're diminishing our involvement in the Middle
East or that we've put anything on a back burner. This is a front burner
issue. It's always going to be a front burner issue. Betsy.
QUESTION: There seems to have been another murder of a real estate or
land - someone who sells land in --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: -- in the occupied territories. Has the U.S. talked about this
with the Palestinians? Have we talked directly with Arafat about it -
either Dennis or another representative of this government? And what was
their response?
MR. BURNS: We understand there has been a second murder. We obviously
look to the Israeli and Palestinian police to investigate this murder;
hopefully to apprehend the suspects, any suspects to prosecute those who
the evidence would indicate may be responsible for the murder, and to
punish them. The United States condemns murder of this type - politically
motivated murder of this type.
We have addressed our concerns to the Palestinian Authority. We understand
that Mr. Abdul Rahman, the Secretary General of the Palestinian Authority,
just in the last couple of hours has condemned this murder; has said the
Palestinian Authority had nothing to do with it; and said that anyone
taking the law into their hands would be tried. This statement is welcome.
It is welcome because we need to see from the Palestinian Authority, both
in what they say and in what they do, a commitment to the law and to the
rule of law, whether it's in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. That's
a very important to us. We would condemn, obviously, any effort to incite
violence on the part of any Palestinian official. We are very, very unhappy
with the prior comments of the Justice Minister more than a week ago. We've
told the Palestinians this directly. Dennis Ross has, as has Consul General
Ed Abington.
QUESTION: Nick, you say that you believe this second murder is also
politically motivated? Because there was some talk it might have been
related to something other than --
MR. BURNS: We're going to have to obviously await the results of a police
investigation and any judicial action that takes place after that
investigation. But in the present climate, there are lots of allegations
that there are political motivations for these two shootings. The United
States believes there's no place for that. There's no place for incitement
to violence. We've certainly made this clear to the Palestinian leadership.
QUESTION: Also, to go back to your previous point, the U.S. is a front
burner - the Middle East peace process is a front burner issue. If so, what
are the next steps that you all are going to take in the coming days and
weeks to keep this on the front burner?
MR. BURNS: The next steps: to try to bring the Palestinians and Israelis
together at the negotiating table. Those have been the next steps for many
months now. I can't tell you tactically what decisions the President and
the Secretary and Dennis Ross will make to agree on those tactics and to
follow those tactics, new tactics perhaps, to get the Palestinians and
Israelis together. They'll be talking about that this week and into next
week.
We'll just have to see what the United States decides to do. But I can tell
you one thing: we'll be active and we'll be playing a leadership role.
QUESTION: Has Dennis met with the Secretary yet?
MR. BURNS: Dennis spoke with the Secretary several times over the
weekend. They spoke by phone over the weekend.
QUESTION: Has he met with the President yet?
MR. BURNS: Pardon?
QUESTION: Has he met with the President?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that he has met with the President, but
obviously the President has been briefed by Sandy Berger on all these
conversations. The President is well aware of what's happening.
QUESTION: I have a question on --
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Would it be within the rule of law and acceptable to the United
States if the Palestinians - which they have, I guess - were to pass a law
to ban the sale of land on the West Bank to Jews, but dropped - but do it
in accordance with law and have it as judicial procedure, rather than these
apparently ex-judicial procedures?
MR. BURNS: Well, I prefer not to take hypothetical questions like this
because the last thing I want to do is make the United States part of an
argument and not part of the solution. We'll remain part of the solution in
our private discussions.
QUESTION: But Nick, you don't want to take the opportunity to speak out
against those sort of discriminatory policies?
MR. BURNS: Sid, all I'm saying is that we've had a very clear policy over
incitement to violence, obviously a clear opposition to murder. We're
encouraging the Palestinians to do a better job of making it clear publicly
what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. When you get into the issue
of land, whether it's the right of Palestinians to buy land in Israel or
the right of Israelis to buy land in the West Bank or Gaza, you're
dealing with among the two or three most sensitive issues in the 49-
year history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict in that part of the world.
We will act privately to motivate them to follow reason. But we're not
going to incite ourselves on one side or another of this issue. Our views
will remain private on that hypothetical question. When it comes to murder
or incitement to violence, we've been very clear and very vocal about our
opposition to that. Dimitris.
QUESTION: Nick, during the meeting between Secretary Cook and Secretary
Albright, there was a discussion on Cyprus and southeast Mediterranean
security?
MR. BURNS: I don't believe that was one of the major issues that was
discussed this morning. Obviously, it's always an issue between the United
States and the United Kingdom - an issue on which we agree. That is that
all of us should do what we can to help promote peace in Cyprus and help
promote better relations between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean.
QUESTION: What about the question you took on Friday?
MR. BURNS: I took a couple of questions on Friday, but I'm glad to answer
any of them if we can identify - you mean the one about the Aegean
negotiations?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: What I can say there is that the Secretary General has put
forward some ideas to reduce - Secretary General Solana - to reduce
tensions between Greece and Turkey. It would be inappropriate for me to
comment publicly about the details of those negotiations because Secretary
General Solana has not done so. He prefers to keep these discussions
private, and we will respect his wishes. We do recognize that these types
of discussions involve issues that are complex legally, like many of the
questions related to the Aegean Sea, and they are very sensitive politically
for both Greece and Turkey. It is, therefore, understandable if Greece
and Turkey want to have a cautious public approach themselves to these
issues.
But we do understand that the proposals put forward by Secretary General
Solana remain under the active consideration of both governments, under
active discussion. We are pleased that these talks appear to be making
progress; that the two countries continue to approach them with a degree of
seriousness and good faith, and we are not disappointed under these
circumstances. We think any time you have got the two countries talking
about measures that would reduce tensions, that is a good thing. But we do
understand these are not simple questions. These are not yes or no
questions. The Greek government, the Turkish government, may require
further time to look at them, and that is certainly fine with us.
QUESTION: Nick, the Turkish government is prepared to accept Secretary
General Solana's proposals?
MR. BURNS: You know, I would have to refer you to the Turkish Government
to announce its own position. I don't want to announce the Turkish position
here at the State Department.
QUESTION: This was a position expressed last week by the Pentagon. Then
let me - you know, reformulate the question. Do you agree with the Pentagon
that Turkish Government is ready to accept these proposals?
MR. BURNS: Well, I think I already told you last week I also agree with
Ken Bacon, whatever he says. But I think it is very important for us, in
the middle of negotiations, not to step into the negotiations publicly and
try to describe the positions of the negotiating parties. Let's let the
Turkish Government and the Greek Government speak for itself.
QUESTION: The Pentagon said it.
MR. BURNS: I always agree with everything the Pentagon says. The problem
is not with the Pentagon; the problem is we've got delicate, sensitive
negotiations, and let's keep them private. On Greece-Turkey?
QUESTION: No, on the meeting.
MR. BURNS: On this meeting?
QUESTION: On the meeting this morning.
MR. BURNS: The meeting this morning, yes.
QUESTION: On the gold issue.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: This international commission meeting has been mentioned a
couple of times.
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about what that sort of thing would
achieve, where it might - you know, what type of participation there would
be? And, also, how the U.S. feels now about whether that might be a first
step to re-opening the gold negotiations of '46, the Tripartite Gold
Commission negotiations.
MR. BURNS: Right. Well, as you know, I think there are a couple of things
happening, a couple of things that are important in the joint statement
that we have just issued between the U.S. and the U.K. The first is that as
members of the Tripartite Gold Commission, we would ask the Commission, and
we would want to work within the Commission, to have it complete its work
as soon as possible. That is very important.
QUESTION: And then distribute the remaining tasks.
MR. BURNS: To complete its work as soon as possible. I don't want to get
into all - there are a lot of different issues here -- both a review of
past actions and there is some work that needs to be done to complete the
distribution of assets. So that, we think, has to happen first.
We think, second, that the Commission itself, the Tripartite Gold
Commission, ought to be open to a review of its own historical documents as
part of a good faith effort to join the Swiss, join the Americans, join the
British, all these countries that have put out reports, to see if we can
get to the bottom of all these very complex, sometimes arcane, questions of
international law, international financial law.
Third, because there are so many different issues under this general rubric
of Nazi gold -- so many different, sometimes competing, issues, and there
isn't really one commission that has authority to look into all the
different issues -- we agree with the British Government. It is a good idea
to convene an international conference to look at the totality of the
issues. As for the details of which country is invited when, where, it will
be in the U.K., we will have to let the British Government announce the
details.
A final point -- the United States told it like it was, like how we saw it
in our report on Nazi gold, particularly concerning the actions of the
Swiss Government. There has been a lot of piling on against the Swiss
before that report and since. The Swiss, we believe, are making a good
faith effort to deal with this problem. They have established a commission
to look into the problem. They have established a memorial fund to try to
help compensate either the victims of the Holocaust or families of the
victims.
This has been a profound national crisis in Switzerland over the last
couple of months, and there hasn't been a more vocal critic from time to
time than the United States. But we ought to be fair to the Swiss. We ought
to give the Swiss, as a country, and ought to give the Swiss Government an
opportunity now, over some months, to look into their own archives, to
search their national consciences and to develop answers to many, many
questions that have been asked. They have formed these commissions, which
we think might give us many of the answers and we think might allow us to
put this issue behind us at some point in the future.
QUESTION: So this conference is sort of going to become kind of an
umbrella over all of these efforts to get to the bottom of it, maybe a
clearinghouse for decisions and information? Is that what you are going
for?
MR. BURNS: It will allow all the countries that are involved here --
Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Germany, the United States, the U.K. - an
opportunity to sit together in one place and to both share an assessment of
what the current problems are emanating from what happened in the war and
after the war, and also then to perhaps even agree on some common course of
action, understanding that some of the action has to come from countries
themselves, like Switzerland. The Swiss have gone well down the road in
identifying what they need to do. I think the Swiss deserve some credit
for that.
QUESTION: Nick, on another -- (inaudible) - subject, Korea. Have we - has
there been the -
MR. BURNS: On Nazi gold?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. BURNS: On Nazi, gold, yes.
QUESTION: One of the key recommendations of Mr. Ambassador Eizenstat was
that some of the - or most of the money that was left in the Allies' safes,
so to speak, will be diverted to individuals or victims and not returned to
the treasuries of the countries that were victims of the Nazis. Is that
trend of diverting the last round of distribution of gold not to states but
to victims -
MR. BURNS: Individuals, yes.
QUESTION: -- individuals, was that trend a part of the agreement or part
of the spirit of the agreement between - of the announcement between the
two states?
MR. BURNS: They did not get into a specific discussion of that and I
don't want to say that they have agreed with the UK on that. I'll have to
let the UK speak for itself. But the United States did speak quite clearly
in the report issued by Under Secretary of Commerce Eizenstat. Yes,
Chuck.
QUESTION: There is a report out of Colombia in the Colombian newspaper,
the Bogota newspaper, that some jailed Colombian drug bosses have placed
both President Samper and U.S. Ambassador Frechette on an assassination
list. Do you have any knowledge or comment about this?
MR. BURNS: Well, we are aware of the story that appeared in newspapers in
Colombia today. We take security for our diplomatic personnel more
seriously than anything else. We have provided Ambassador Frechette with
substantial security. I'm not going to go into the details of that,
obviously. But everyone should know that we take this commitment seriously.
QUESTION: He is not thinking of leaving the country?
MR. BURNS: No way. He's been out of the country. He's been here in
consultations. He will be returning. I'm not going to say where and when,
but he is going to be returning. He has a job to do. He is a very
courageous, very dynamic guy, very aggressive, very confident that the
United States is doing the right thing in Colombia. He is going back to do
his job.
We will obviously take this issue very, very seriously, and we will rely
upon the Colombian Government to help us ensure the security of all of our
diplomats in Colombia.
QUESTION: Nick, are you going to increase the security in light of this
threat?
MR. BURNS: I'm not going to describe what we are going to do because that
might weaken the security measures themselves. I'm just going to say that
we will provide him with the security that he needs to do his job as our
ambassador to Colombia. But the United States is not going to be driven out
of Colombia by threats from narco-traffickers.
QUESTION: Is this a credible threat? Have you seen the information
surrounding --
MR. BURNS: It is always hard to know that, but we treat all threats
seriously.
QUESTION: Did you know about it prior to the front pages of El Tiempo
this morning?
MR. BURNS: Yes.
QUESTION: You did know about it?
MR. BURNS: We have known about security threats, yes.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) from the cartels to Ambassador Frechette's
life?
MR. BURNS: We have known about a variety of security threats to our
diplomatic personnel. Yes.
QUESTION: How does the United States view the change of government in
Zaire vis-à-vis the coalition, which is formed by some countries
like Rwanda and Uganda, opposing the fundamentalist regime in Sudan? That
is one part.
The second part, I had some reports that Al Saddiq Al Mahdi, who is a
Sudanese opposition leader, is in Washington. Is that an official invite,
if it's true? And are there any meetings planned with this gentleman?
MR. BURNS: One the second question, I'll have to take that question. I
don' t know if he is in Washington or not. But I will be glad to look into
it for you and try to get you an answer. On the first question, I just
don't - frankly, with all due respect, I'm not sure I know what to say or
how to answer that question. I'm not sure I want to make a comparison
between the situations in Zaire and Sudan. I think they are distinct
situations.
QUESTION: But is it going to strengthen the opposition --
MR. BURNS: The opposition of the?
QUESTION: Of some countries surrounding Sudan, like Uganda, Rwanda, to
the Sudanese fundamentalist government? And do you view it as a detrimental
to that position?
MR. BURNS: I'm not in a position to try to foresee what the balance of
power is going to be in that part of Africa. We hope it is quiet and stable
and peaceful.
We have a question back here, and then Judd. Yes.
QUESTION: Nick, a question on China and MFN. The Governor of Hong Kong
Chris Patten has said he didn't want MFN to be granted in increments. He
said that would be unhealthy. That would hurt confidence in Hong Kong. Were
his worries - were his concerns taken into account?
MR. BURNS: Well, first, let me say, the President, who is my superior, is
going to be making an announcement very soon on this. I don't want to get
ahead of the President. Second, Secretary Albright is making extensive
comments about MFN in her speech at Wilmington, which I hope will be
available as you exit here, in the press office.
Third, we have had a very good relationship with Governor Chris Patten. We
respect him. He has done an outstanding job in defending civil liberties in
Hong Kong. We always listen to his views, as we do to the Hong Kong
democrats - people like Martin Lee, who visited with the Secretary and the
President recently. Judd.
QUESTION: President Yeltsin gave a speech to the Russian parliament
during which his view of the Founding Act and Russia's authority or
influence, I should say, I guess, within NATO seems to differ from
Secretary General Solana's. Are you concerned that there is a discrepancy
here in understanding?
MR. BURNS: Oh, not really. I think there may be semantic differences. I
haven't seen his whole speech. Perhaps he was taken out of context. We
think we have a very clear understanding between NATO and Russia over what
it is in the Founding Act, what it all means, what type of relationship is
going to be produced in the joint council from that, and we are not worried
about it. We think it will march forward to Paris for this very important
signing a week from tomorrow.
QUESTION: Are you concerned - is there any concern that the decision-
making process in the future might be more cumbersome with Russia having
some input?
MR. BURNS: No, Russia has a voice, not a veto. Russia will not be making
NATO decisions. Russia will be embarking on a new relationship with NATO in
the joint council. That is very important. But there are different
activities, different spheres here. NATO will continue to be a very
effective institution. As for whether the document is ready or not, Sid, I
think that it is all but ready except for -- in diplomacy what we have to
do, especially with other languages, differing languages, is conform the
text to make sure that each of the different texts in different languages
is identical. I think that is still underway and that will probably be
underway for a couple of days, but I think the major substantive issues
have clearly been answered.
QUESTION: No brackets?
MR. BURNS: I can't say that there aren't any brackets, but all the major
issues are handled. President Chirac was in Moscow yesterday and said that
we're ready to go for Paris, and we will certainly be there.
QUESTION: Nick, there apparently was some unclarity with regard to the
situation in the Baltic states. The official statements had been that the
Baltic states could also, you know, join NATO. But in terms of the Russia
agreement, there were some differences of opinion here. And apparently
Deputy Secretary Talbott invited in the ambassadors of the three Baltic
states to brief them on that, indicating where the problems lie. I wonder
if you have anything to say about the meeting.
MR. BURNS: Very briefly, all I can say on that is that NATO and NATO
alone, now and in the future, will determine which countries are invited to
be members in NATO. The Baltic countries, as well as all of the countries
that are members of the Partnership for Peace, are eligible now and will be
eligible in the future for NATO membership. Nothing in the negotiations
between NATO and Russia would impinge on that question, would prevent
NATO at any time in the future from making the decision to invite
them or other countries in.
QUESTION: Can you say particularly what the problems were in the Russia-
NATO agreement with regard to the Baltic states?
MR. BURNS: Well, as the agreement was reached there were no problems. It
was very clear. NATO decides these questions. Russia is a potential member
of NATO in the future, as are the Baltic countries -- any member of the
Partnership for Peace. The three Baltic countries and Russia, Ukraine, they
are all members of the Partnership for Peace.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about Secretary Talbott's message to the
Baltic ambassadors with regard to -
MR. BURNS: We are in the closest touch with those three ambassadors,
those three governments, and have been through the life of this administration.
Strobe Talbott meets with them regularly to brief them on what is happening
in our discussions with the Russians, and I think the Baltic governments
appreciate that very much.
Thank you.
(The briefing concluded at 2:00 PM)
(###)
|
